Why bother?

March 25, 2006 12:51 AM

Freed and ungrateful?"Norman Kember, the freed peace activist, will arrive back in Britain today amid growing controversy over his failure publicly to thank the military forces who rescued him." "Rescued British hostage Norman Kember yesterday refused to fly home from Iraq in a RAF military jet." Kember is a member of the Christian Peacemaker Teams: Committed to reducing violence by "getting in the way". This is not the first controversy regarding western hostages freed in Iraq. Former kidnap victim Susanne Osthoff kept parts of the ransom money: "Politicians and the public were yesterday asking new questions about her ordeal. Many have lost patience with Miss Osthoff, a convert to Islam, since she declared her intention to return to Iraq and failed to thank them for their efforts to free her." Former kidnap victim Giuliana Sgrena was accused of cooperating with her abductors.
posted by iviken (59 comments total)

Stockholm syndrome?
posted by spazzm at 12:54 AM on March 25, 2006

Stockholm syndrome?

Not really. The hostages on Norrmalmstorg in Stockholm weren't in sympathy with the bank robbers when they went into the bank. One assumes Kember, et al. went to Iraq precisely because they were already holding sympathethic views.

The armed forces shouldn't waste one minute worrying about civilians like this who put themselves in harm's way. As much as he hates the soldiers, they were ordered to put themselves at risk because of him. A "thank you" is the least they deserve.
posted by three blind mice at 6:11 AM on March 25, 2006

Stockholm syndome? I don't think so. When Norman Kember wanted to "reduce violence by getting in the way", he accepted the risks and perhaps would rather be martyr for a cause he belived in, than to be rescued by the western military forces he opposes.

"Before he first visited Iraq in 2002, rescued hostage James Loney said that "just as soldiers are prepared to sacrifice their lives for the state, as a Christian who believes in non-violence, I'm prepared to make the same sacrifice for my non-violent beliefs."

"The security source who described the schism among the abductors said that the former hostages had denounced the U.S. occupation of Iraq after they were freed. Attempts to debrief them were unsuccessful and no gratitude was offered to the soldiers for rescuing them.

“The old English guy wasn't too bad, but the Canadians have continued to be stroppy,” the source said. “A lot of people are not too happy about the way they have been.”
Had it gone awry, however, this week's rescue could have resulted in the "sacrifice" of who-knows how many people: the captives, the captors, the rescuers, even uninvolved passersby."

"The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday.

The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages."
posted by iviken at 6:12 AM on March 25, 2006

"Hooray! I've been saved by the bad guys!"
How thrilled would you be?

I would think that the best aspect of this for the freed hostages is that the captors were not shot, however being aided by a tool of aggression wouldn't sit well with many pacifists, I don't think.

The Times report reminds me that the organisation has previously requested no military assistance in instances of kidnap. How much of this was humanitarian, how much of this was about saving national face? Might the CPT bring legal action against the force for breaching their human rights, or would that be un-Christian?
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:26 AM on March 25, 2006

"The rest of us in CPT are also grateful to all those who worked nonviolently and who prayed fervently for their release – religious leaders and soldiers, team-mates and government officials, partner organizations, friends, family, children, women and men all over the world. We are particularly grateful that no one was injured in this rescue operation."
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:30 AM on March 25, 2006

ah the irony of a reckless clueless Christian in danger of being slaughtered like a pig (well, a lamb in this case, probably) by a Muslim nut in the name of the same God (YHWH/God the Father/Allah) they both think they're worshipping
posted by matteo at 6:34 AM on March 25, 2006

One assumes Kember, et al. went to Iraq precisely because they were already holding sympathethic views.

I don't see how that's a reasonable assumption at all.

Opposition to the war is hardly the same thing as sympathy for the insurgent forces.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:35 AM on March 25, 2006

Kember thanks military rescuers.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:37 AM on March 25, 2006

Stockholm syndrome?

Or simply not wanting to be turned into the next Jessica Lynch.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:40 AM on March 25, 2006

NinjaPirate: the part of the statement you quote, is an addendum, that was not part of the original statement from CPT. The original statement, on the same page, does NOT have any "thank you" to the soldiers involved. Insted, they indirectly blamed the American, Canadian and British soldiers in Iraq for the kidnapping:

"Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end."
posted by iviken at 6:40 AM on March 25, 2006

From the first link:

CPT has always made it clear that its members did not want force to be used to rescue them if they were kidnapped or held hostage.

In those circumstances their non-response is perfectly reasonable.
posted by unSane at 6:46 AM on March 25, 2006

unSane: no force were actually used during the rescue.
posted by iviken at 7:06 AM on March 25, 2006

OK let me get this straight. These Peace activists were willing to put themselves at risk. They belonged to a group which had a specific non-intervention in case of kidnap policy. Said group negotiated with the "Peacekeepers" in Iraq and only agreed to this operation when told it had "minimal risk to life". And now we are complaining?

The soldiers sent to Iraq have enough to do to keep themselves safe. I do not accept the argument that the british army has a soverign duty to its own citizens where those citizens have accepted the risks.
For whatever reasons. I also do not believe we should be actively intervening when people accept jobs at multiples of the going rate. Because there is no effective police force in Iraq, that's why they are paying you like a computer engineer to raise walls. DoH!!

Whatever armies are doing there it can't be policing, so lets' not beat the Christian (insert peace group name here) activists up about this.

Oh, and by the way, Mr Kember has acknowledged the bravery of those involved in his rescue, once he was given a chance to speak.

The lobby that believe he and the others were non-compliant with their rescuers because they refused to take part in the debrief miss the point. Norman Kember would have been as distraught at the death of one of his rescuers as he would be at the death of one of his kidnappers. Not a worldview that I can share but one I am willing to admire and acknowledge when I see it.
posted by Wilder at 7:07 AM on March 25, 2006

I like the Foxnewsworthy line in the lead-in:
"Former kidnap victim Giuliana Sgrena was accused of cooperating with her abductors."
Umm. . . a blogger with a Star Wars fetish seems to be the accuser. And he brings forth such razor sharp insights (and this is his lead-in)

"We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us and he tried to cover me and he was shot. He died and, me, I was safe but he was dead. [Sgrena now changes her story. It was tanks that fired on the car?]"

Tank or armored vehicle? Big discrepancy. Especially since it's likely that at least one source was translated.

And then to toss her, who got shot at and got her rescuer killed, in to a post on someone who supposedly wasn't grateful enough fast enough and someone who used Iraqi kidnappings as a scam?

Why bother? Why bother jumbling together a weak-assed thread?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:07 AM on March 25, 2006

indirectly blamed the American, Canadian and British soldiers in Iraq for the kidnapping

Canadian soldiers in Iraq? Someone is misinformed?
posted by Meatbomb at 7:27 AM on March 25, 2006

By the way, the idea that one should only do good things if people are going to be grateful is a particularly nasty one.

If you a do a good deed for someone who didn't ask you to do it, and they don't express gratitude, the grown up thing to do is shrug and move on, not to whine about it and wonder if you should bother doing that kind of thing in future.

"A good deed is its own reward" is a cliche, but true.
posted by unSane at 7:37 AM on March 25, 2006

..on Saturday, Mr Kember [of Harrow Baptist Church] said: "I do not believe that a lasting peace is achieved by armed force, but I pay tribute to their courage and thank those who played a part in my rescue."

This post, like the news reports which prompted it, is simply premature speculation.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:38 AM on March 25, 2006

Metafilter: premature speculation
posted by j.p. Hung at 7:41 AM on March 25, 2006

What's next a dear prudence letter asking how to arrange the seating in an unarmored Hummer for a planned IED suprise party?

Lecturing peace activists on manners toward volunteer soldiers - you know people who choose to kill for a living - is pretty much the absolute ceiling of hypocrisy.
posted by srboisvert at 7:42 AM on March 25, 2006

"you know people who choose to kill for a living

Oh c'mon dude. What they choose - in the most ideal setting - is to defend what this country stands for, to protect it's citizens and to do a hell of lot more good on a daily basis than mr. peace activist ever will. Can you show a modecum of level-headedness in your responses? And what kind of dick doesn't say "thanks" to someone for saving your life?

Maybe these wanna-be martyrs should realize that our troops just allowed him to be an 'activist' for a bit longer; just gave them a chance to maybe make a difference for another day.
Seriously, what a bunch of asshats.
posted by j.p. Hung at 7:57 AM on March 25, 2006

All the point was in making Kember look as ungrateful selfish bastard who opposes the armed forces and doesn't thank them for saving him.

Not suprisingly this below-the-belt punch doesn't come from ordinary disaffected grunts, but comes from General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army , who can now plausibly deny his remarks weren't conceived to paint Kember as swine, but just his representation of soldiers disappointment.

I wonder how much of this vociferous attention do the grunts receive from this and other Generals when they're pissed off by other officiers or by the government.
posted by elpapacito at 8:01 AM on March 25, 2006

Kember is a swine if he can't muster up enough dignity to say thank you when others put their life in harms way for him. The General, is also a dick: These guys have to know that your going to have these peace activists turning up and I have to believe it's an expected part of any invasion - at some point. It's a wash - their both jerks.
posted by j.p. Hung at 8:06 AM on March 25, 2006

Metafilter: premature e-speculation
posted by joe lisboa at 8:18 AM on March 25, 2006

Kember is a swine if he can't muster up enough dignity to say thank you when others put their life in harms way for him.

I believe he didn't ask to be rescued ? Yeah sounds harsh, but nobody forced the soldiers...oh wait somebody DID force them to go nonetheless, the general(s) I guess ? Isn't it miserable to use grunts as political hostages against an oppositor ?

Actually this "clash" grunts-life vs peacenik-life is another expression of war between poors : the grunts having little other choice and sometimes a wish to do good to humanity, the peacenik having some more choice and choosing to do good to humanity....both on a road paved with good intentions, except they think they are using different methods.

I guess some people is wondering how can people be so easily divided.
posted by elpapacito at 8:23 AM on March 25, 2006

What they choose - in the most ideal setting - is to defend what this country stands for, to protect it's citizens and to do a hell of lot more good on a daily basis than mr. peace activist ever will. Can you show a modecum of level-headedness in your responses? And what kind of dick doesn't say "thanks" to someone for saving your life?

Oh let's all be levelheaded about this? You crack me up. You do remember that this thread was about the heinous (and it turns out imaginary) offense of not having the proper manners to thank soldiers (who are in Iraq defending us somehow from something while killing a whole lot of people both insurgent and also innocent) don't you?

Fuck your call for a modicum of level-headness. On one side we have people who are upset about manners. On the other we have people who are upset about thousands of pointless deaths. Guess what? They are not level.
posted by srboisvert at 8:29 AM on March 25, 2006

Meatbomb, 'fraid so. Looks like there's RCMP and possibly JTF2 involved.

Guess this means that Canadians are now legitimate targets, as they're part of this illegal war.
posted by scruss at 8:50 AM on March 25, 2006

He shouldn't have been rescued.
posted by fire&wings at 9:16 AM on March 25, 2006

Y'know, I'm okay with rescuing asshats once. Everyone deserves a shot at redemption.

Let 'em die the next time around. It's the fool-me-once philosophy.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:17 AM on March 25, 2006

Since when did Christians start opposing violence?
posted by bardic at 9:18 AM on March 25, 2006

If they won't give info that could save other hostages, I have no use for them.
posted by konolia at 9:20 AM on March 25, 2006

Former kidnap victim Giuliana Sgrena was accused of cooperating with her abductors.

This is such utter "some people say" horseshit. This post is trying too hard.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:21 AM on March 25, 2006

Wow. I guess Jackson's subtle little slur did the trick, eh?

Head of the British Army, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, had said he was "saddened" there did not seem to be any gratitude after the rescue of Mr Kember, James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32.

What the hell business is it of his? STFU, Jackson, your men are highly-skilled, highly-trained professionals there to do a job. You only look a prat by complaining they didn't get a big thank you hug.

I note he didn't wipe away a tear and say he was saddened that his men were getting killed by the incompetence of Tony Blair, George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld. Rethink your priorities on what you should tell the public you're "saddened" about, General. Go after the lying scum, not the pacifists.
posted by kaemaril at 9:26 AM on March 25, 2006

bardic : a better question might be, why did they stop?
posted by kaemaril at 9:27 AM on March 25, 2006

three blind mice >>> "The armed forces shouldn't waste one minute worrying about civilians like this who put themselves in harm's way. As much as he hates the soldiers, they were ordered to put themselves at risk because of him. A 'thank you' is the least they deserve."

Er, no. They're doing their job. The precise job of soldiers is to protect the ideals and beliefs of the country which they serve. Beliefs which in this case include freedom from kidnapping etc. Their job is to worry about civilians like this, and pull their asses out of the fire. Much like that whole "I don't agree with what you say but will defend etc etc", it doesn't matter whether or not these civilians put their lives at risk. The duty of the soldiers is to rescue them. Would you say that someone who has chosen to live in a high crime neighbourhood deserves to not have police look after them? Or that police shouldn't rescue a criminal? Of course not. No matter what, everyone is protected by the same laws. That's what's supposed to make the whole idea of Western democracy the 'right' idea. Hearts and minds, remember? And all that means that no matter what, you and I and warmongers and peacemakers and everyone else have the protection of our armed forces, whether we agree with that protection or not.

The fact that they didn't want to be rescued in such a manner is a bit of a sticky point, granted.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:46 AM on March 25, 2006

What they choose - in the most ideal setting - is to defend what this country stands for, to protect it's citizens and to do a hell of lot more good on a daily basis than mr. peace activist ever will.

Is that "doing good" in the style of Vietnam, Panama, or Kuwait? Just curious, 'cuz it seems we've been using our sodiers for ideological and/or capitalist reasons more often than not. Yes, sometimes bad intentions lead to positive results (Seoul is a pretty nice place), but unless America is facing invasion and/or destruction at the hands of a foe, its soldiers are neither "doing good" nor "protecting its citizens."

In the words of General Smedley Butler, USMC:

"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights."
posted by solipse at 9:53 AM on March 25, 2006

"Former kidnap victim Giuliana Sgrena was accused of cooperating with her abductors.

This is such utter "some people say" horseshit. This post is trying too hard."

I dunno. I remember hearing about her story in many other places. Google for "Giuliana Sgrena lies -blog" and you'll find quite a few results that are not the page the OP linked to. Unfortunately, you'll still get quite a few blogs though.
posted by drstein at 10:05 AM on March 25, 2006

I have no use for them.

off with their heads then! "Christian" values at work.
posted by matteo at 10:08 AM on March 25, 2006

"In a statement, CPT did not mention the soldiers - but thanked well-wishers and God.

Spokesman Doug Pritchard said: "We believe the illegal occupation of Iraq by multi-national forces is the root cause of the insecurity which has led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering."

Hours later, amid mounting pressure, words of thanks to the troops were added to the statement.

A Whitehall insider said: "It seemed it was issued after behind-the-scenes pressure from Foreign Office officials concerned at the lack of thanks in the original statement."
posted by iviken at 10:12 AM on March 25, 2006

Oh c'mon dude. What they choose - in the most ideal setting - is to defend what this country stands for, to protect it's citizens and to do a hell of lot more good on a daily basis than mr. peace activist ever will.

No.

These idiot soldiers are a huge part of the problem. They choose to make themselves merely unthinking tools for whatever moron wields power at the moment, for whatever stupid, cowardly cause he or she dreamt up. They are merely good followers - unwilling to rock the boat or displease their elders by doing their own reasoning. They're merely good followers. They lack the simple intestinal fortitude to stand up and be men and women. They are merely the tragically young and foolish, killers we hire to assuage our own boundless fear and laziness, violent tools we hire because we don't mind taking advantage of their heartbreakingly stupid trust and ignorance.

We, and these young soldiers, should be on their knees thanking peace activists for trying to save them from what's worse than death....thanking them for taking braver and more beneficient actions than a thousand simpleminded, pitiable errandboys in shiny uniforms ever will.

If we'd only listened to those brave peace activists earlier instead of the pro-military, pro-war cretins, thousands now dead and yet to die would still be walking in the sunshine.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:12 AM on March 25, 2006

More of General Butler's wisdom, supporting fold_and_mutilate's sentiment:

"My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military."
posted by solipse at 10:19 AM on March 25, 2006

And tens of thousands now alive would be dead at the hands of Saddam and his sons, or are you overlooking the death rate in his regime, fold_and_mutilate?

But that's neither here or there, right? If Saddam wants to kill off his population, that's his right and we shouldn't have interfered. Hand-wring, perhaps, issue strongly worded statements maybe, certainly deplore - but never interfere.

Anyway, re the peace activists - sometimes the princess really wants to be eaten by the dragon, in the hopes that it'll give the dragon indigestion and it will become a vegetarian. And as such, would be royally pissed to be rescued by anyone, much less someone who would actively want to kill the dragon.
posted by JB71 at 10:20 AM on March 25, 2006

Oooh, the peace activists are putting our troops at risk.

NO.

The people who ordered an illegal invasion and occupation, thus setting up this lamentable and tragic situation, are the people who put our troops at risk.
posted by kaemaril at 10:39 AM on March 25, 2006

what dances said above about that blog link...

Whatever one thinks of the kidnapped peace activists or journalists, regardless of how debatable or clueless their opinions may be and whether they even sympathise with the insurgency or not, I find the whole "ungrateful!" thing really disconcerting and revolting, and I am saddened by the fact it's happening in the UK too.

I don't believe the army or government has an absolute obligation to rescue its citizens who knowingly entered a dangerous zone, for any reason, as professionals or volunteers, and got kidnapped; but I also believe that, if the government and army decide to go and rescue them, paying ransom or not, then no one has forced them to do it and they have no right to expect people change their opinions on the war because of that. All sorts of people doing all sorts of jobs and having all sorts of different opinions were taken hostage. Are some "worthier" than others?

All this "but they didn't thank us" is also in bad taste considering what these people have been through. If the army decided they deserved their rescue efforts, then end of story, they deserved it regardless of their political stance.
posted by funambulist at 10:40 AM on March 25, 2006

I can't help feeling all this "but they didn't thank us" (which is untrue, by the way) is simply government-sponsored spin to make the victims look bad. Heaven knows, we can't allow peace activists to sound like they're anything than ultra-liberal peacenik hippies who go around deliberately making trouble for our noble occupying forces...
posted by kaemaril at 10:46 AM on March 25, 2006

anything other than.

D'OH! Lousy lack of editing facility ...
posted by kaemaril at 10:47 AM on March 25, 2006

btw, Sgrena did thank the Italian government and the intelligence services... it's a whole different story anyway... she was a journalist; her rescuer got killed by the US army and it was a top intelligence officer, who may have kept the US command in the dark about the rescue operation, that part will never be known because it's all about the intelligence services of at least two countries so each one is trying to cover their asses on the fuckup (wherever the fuckup is, maybe on both sides).

But she didn't "lie" to either the press or investigators, the whole "300 or 400" bullets thing was something her partner said to the press right after the news of the shooting, and after talking to her; she never said that figure, only talked of being suddenly attacked and bullets flying and the car windows shattered. She clarified it in interviews too. Anyone still harping on about that is in bad faith.

She got attacked because of her political views and because of the suggestions the shooting may have not have been an accident, something that crossed many people's minds simply because of the nebulous dynamics of the accident and because it's obvious that if a ransom was paid and terrorists negotiated with, it's not something the US would approve, and the agent who got killed as the main man responsible for those negotiations also for previous hostages. It was him who literally 'cooperated with' the abductors, obviously, to secure the release.
posted by funambulist at 10:54 AM on March 25, 2006

Here, I'll do it for them:

Thank-you, right wing militarist assholes, for invading a country and killing tens of thousands of its innocent civilians, so that my conscience would prompt me to go there and protect them.
posted by rougy at 11:44 AM on March 25, 2006

Don't panic! He's thanked them now.

Although he makes no mention of baking them a Thank You cake. The ungrateful bastard.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:59 AM on March 25, 2006

Mail On Sunday headline: Kember Back. Jackson livid as all he gets by way of thanks is "I rescued a pacifist from kidnappers and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"...
posted by kaemaril at 12:50 PM on March 25, 2006

One thing that I know is that Harmeet Sooden is a student in Auckland. We had regular news coverage where family members and friends would implore the New Zealand government to do more for Harmeet (as though we could do anything!) And he was always described as "an aid worker" in the news. So I find it a bit of a piss-off to discover that being in harm's way is not merely an unfortunate side-effect of doing something charitable (like providing medical care, or working on the water supply, or whatever). Instead, their charitable effort consists of nothing but being in harm's way, and then bleating to the very goverments they otherwise condemn when it happens.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 1:31 PM on March 25, 2006

Oh c'mon dude. What they choose - in the most ideal setting - is to defend what this country stands for, to protect it's citizens and to do a hell of lot more good on a daily basis than mr. peace activist ever will.

Right, By killing people.
posted by delmoi at 3:50 PM on March 25, 2006

And tens of thousands now alive would be dead at the hands of Saddam and his sons, or are you overlooking the death rate in his regime, fold_and_mutilate?

More like a few hundred, but far, far less in total.
posted by delmoi at 3:54 PM on March 25, 2006

If you ask someone not to do something for you, and they do it, you don't owe them a thankyou.

Pretty straight forward.
posted by delmoi at 3:57 PM on March 25, 2006

Tank or armored vehicle? Big discrepancy. Especially since it's likely that at least one source was translated.

It was a HMMWV with an M240B mounted gun, just for posterity's sake. I wouldn't use either phrase in English, but I don't know what word she used in Italian.

This was a bad post.
posted by dhartung at 2:57 AM on March 26, 2006

In Italian, those armored vehicles of the US army in Iraq are often referred to as "tank", sometimes as "blindati", sometimes as "humvee". (Actual "tanks" are "carri armati".)

So there you go. No discrepancy. Just different use of an English word in another language.
posted by funambulist at 6:52 AM on March 26, 2006

If they won't give info that could save other hostages, I have no use for them.
posted by konolia at 9:20 AM PST on March 25

Since you're a pro-war "Christian," I wouldn't imagine it any other way.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:52 AM on March 26, 2006

The Sunday Times writes:

"Sources close to the SAS unit said the peace activists who had sponsored his visit to Iraq repeatedly failed to co-operate with special forces trying to locate and rescue him.

They said yesterday that after Kember, 74, was kidnapped last November, the CPT in Iraq declined to provide them with information that could have helped them to find him.

Well-placed sources said members of the Canadian group in Baghdad failed to provide the SAS with Kember’s mobile phone number. Cell site analysis could have helped rescuers to trace his last movements.

Doug Pritchard, co-director of the CPT worldwide, said the group had refused to meet any of the military rescue team, preferring to deal with diplomats.

“We said from the outset we didn’t want a military raid and we wouldn’t work with the military,” he said. Relations with the British embassy had become tense after the group told them it was reluctant to enter the green zone and declined to allow diplomats with military escorts to visit their offices outside the zone."
posted by iviken at 8:06 AM on March 26, 2006

I think it is also worth pointing out that from recent reports the captors played a more important role in securing the freedom of the hostages that the coalition troops.

It was their co operation that resulted in the rescue, before that co operation was securred there seemed no chance of getting them out.

I wonder if they are offended they didn't get thanked or if they just grew the fuck up and realised they did the right thing which is pretty sweet without pointless backslapping.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 4:03 AM on March 27, 2006

The military is essentially pointless. A reflection of macho possession attitudes, I suppose. If a person requests, before any such incident occurs, that they do not wish to be rescued, then the matter is closed, and neither the military nor the country has any duty to do so.

They should definitely not be used to show off the SAS and boneheaded soldiers that take them away from their captors.

And killing people is never "making the world a better place." If you're a utilitarian, and say "the greater good is most important", then fine for you. But if you can't just dismiss the fact that the people you've massacred had husbands and wives and families, then you can't justify killing people in any way.

For example, if I personally were offered a chance to save the world by killing a murderous lunatic with a nuclear weapon, I wouldn't. In any scenario.
posted by malusmoriendumest at 8:10 AM on March 27, 2006